Dear Organlearners,
Leo Minnigh <L.D.Minnigh@library.tudelft.nl> writes
>But At, my words are just the spring-off of your fascinating
>contributions. And I like to take the freedom, to ask evrybodies
>attention to something which happened under our eyes:
>THE BIRTH OF A JEWEL. A major emergency, which
>deserves all our attention (and I quote from the very
>source LO21272, dated 12 april 1999; this is a historical date):
>
>"I have succeeded in deriving an equation for the free energy
>change of the digestion reaction. It is given by
>/_\F = - /_\n*m2*[E(m1,M1) - E(m2,M2)] "
>
>
>I hope that we all feel the importance of this formula, whether
>one understands it fully, or not. Dear readers, this is NEW,
>this is a SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
Greetings Leo,
Thank you very much for your kind recognition.
Although the date 12 April 1999 is the first time this equation had been
published and specifically on this LO list, I derived it about 15 years
ago! Thus I had lots of time to experience the Digestor and to learn how
to apply it.
You must bear in mind that your advanced knowledge in geology (think of
crystallography) and wide experience in creativity helped you to make
sense out of Digestor. A lot of loose ends have fallen into place for you.
But for many other fellow learners the Digestor may come as a bolt of
lightning, frightening (intimidating) them. In my recent reply to John
Gunkler under topic "Can organisations learn?" I explained to him how the
Digestor can help to understand more about the process of intimidation.
Since the Digestor intimidates, but also explain how intimidation happen,
we have again the case of "the dog bites its own tail". (We need
lightening to study lightning.) It is a kind of paradox. Some people are
attracted by paradoxes while others find them repulsive. It is a fact we
have to accept.
This formula is in a certain sense of little value. If we do not accept
that the quantity "entropy S" has anything to say for the abstract world
so essential to the humanities, then there is no basis to form an
understanding of the "free energy F" in the abstract world. In that case
even the formula for the Digestor has little meaning, if any. That is why
I have used so much free energy to make entropy more plausible to fellow
learners, keeping the Digestor for later. Some would say that since the
entropy S originally applied to the material world, its application to the
abstract world is materialistic. However, in the Primer on Entropy I have
shown carefully how much the two quantities energy E and entropy E depend
on the abstract world for their very measurement! Thus a converse case
could also be made, namely that energy E and entropy S should never have
been allowed in measurements of the material world.
Yes, after having discovered the equation, I also thought about it as a
jewel. Compare it with the complex string of formulas used to model the
predator-prey relationship in the past. I was reminded very much of
Leibniz and his The Philosopher's Dream. (Please read that piece again.
Since it is not readily available, I reproduced it for the LO list about
two years ago.) What did Leibniz actually discovered in that dark cave in
which humans toil? Monadicity? Digestion? Transdisciplinary thinking? We
will never know.
>And At, I will ask you a very intimate question. Are you able
>to describe to us the proces of digestion and the resulting
>emergency that gave the birth to this formula. I realise that
>this is a very complicated matter (lack of anchor places, or
>subemergencies, the use of tacit knowledge, etc.). Has your
>illness had influence on this process? And of course, the
>influence of this List and your continuous effort to teach us.
>Leads teaching to emergencies?
Is it not strange that you ask me whether my illness (diabetes II caused
by the influenzia virus) had any influence. I thought about the same
thing. I have derived the equation some 15 years ago. But would I have
been able to do it a few weeks ago? I have recently discovered that the
diabetes has a most wierd influence on my brain. It has to do with mental
focussing. But this topic is too long to discuss it here. Please remind
me to tell about it. (Somebody like Louis Pasteur or Arthur Koestler would
have certainly reminded me because of the importance they gave to mental
focussing.)
The digestion which lead to the discovery of the Digestor already began
more than 30 years ago! I will explain it later in this contribution. The
next 15 years gave me sufficient time to digest and digest, building up a
structure so complex that when I finally looked at the Ostwald digestion
process again after hundreds of previous observations, I was able to focus
on the clue in it -- self-organisation close to equilibrium. The free
energy needed to make this focussing possible I derived from letting this
complex structure collapse, thus driving me to the edge of chaos once
again for another bifucration. You will soon see in what sense.
I cannot describe the whole derivation to you for two reasons. Firstly, I
will have to make use of symbols far beyond the capabilities of email
applications like Outlook or Pegasus. Rick will also scold me for not
staying to ASCII code (for symbols which appear on on an international
computer keybord). The second reason is that I will go into technicalities
in mathematics, physics and chemistry far beyond that what a person would
have learned in secondary (high) school.
But there are one "thing" (Latin: "res", see reality) in the derivation
which concerns learning individuals and learning organisations very much.
I will gladly discuss this thing. I will not decribe the Ostwald digestion
process again. I will also not again explain the meaning of each symbol in
the equation for the Digestor.
The thing which comes to my mind is the difference between what may I may
call transdiciplinary thinking (thanks to my dean prof Niko Sauer for
suggesting this word) on the one hand and disciplinary as well as
interdisciplinary thinking on the other hand.
Physics and chemistry are two disciplines (subjects) very close to each
other. For most people they are so close to each that there is no gap
between them. In other words, they appear to have a common border. Two
interdisciplines have developed to cross the border -- physical chemistry
and chemical physics. They seem to indicate the same thing, but it is not
the case. A physical chemist is focused on chemistry, but crosses the
border into physics to see what physics has to say for chemistry. A
chemical physicist is focused on physics, but crosses the border to see
what chemistry has to say for physics. In other words, both act as a
spokesperson. The difference is that the physical chemist acts on behalf
of chemists while the chemical physicist acts on behalf of physicists. In
other words, neither act as an impartial umlomo (mouth piece) or facilitor
for both sides. They are complementary to each other, but not identical to
each other. They would have been a complementary duality were it not for
the third case. This third case is the transdiscipline.
Herein lies the connection with organisational learning. In other words,
although physical chemistry and chemical physics are interdisciplinary
activities, they are not transdisciplinary activities. Another way to
understand it is that physics and chemistry do not have a common border,
but that there is between them a huge gap which only transdisciplinary
thinking will cover. How huge this gap is, we will soon see in terms of
the Digestor. All kinds of Digestors such as crystal or educational fit in
this huge gap.
Another metaphor to illustrate the difference between interdisciplinary
and transdisciplinary thinking is that of line segments. Think of
chemistry and phsyics as two straight line segments pointing into
different directions. Interdisciplinary thinking is like moving the two
lines so as to join one endpoint of each without changing their
directions. The physical chemist moves the line of physics while the
chemical physicist moves the line of chemistry. They may both move these
lines. The end results are the same. Where the two lines join, they make
an angle. There is no smooth transition from the one to the other.
Transdisciplinary thinking is like respecting the gap between the two
endpoints of each line segment. Without moving these two lines,
transdisciplinary thinking tries to find a smooth connection between the
two lines. Such a connection is possible by using a bent curve which
bridges the gap. In other words, transdisciplinary thinking requires
non-linear thinking to bridge gaps.
I first became aware of transdisciplinary thinking more than thirty years
ago when I did research on the chemistry and physics of soils. I was
surprised to find a gap between physics and chemistry. For the purpose of
studying a soil, they did not connect smoothly, despite the well intended
efforts of physical chemists, chemical physicists and even soil scientists
well versed in chemistry and physics. What is worse, a soil is not merely
an inanimate medium, but is also rich in micro-organisms. Thus I became
aware of even another gap between physics and chemistry on the one hand
and biology on the other hand. The more I tried to understand what is
going on between these gaps, the more I grew in tacit knowledge which
corresponded to neither physics, chemistry or biology.
Bring in the psychology of a farmer, the bureaucracy a goverment official,
or the schemes of a politician and you will realise how many gaps I became
aware of. Anyway, in trying to make sense out of the gaps between physics,
chemistry and biology, I stumbled on irreversible thermodynamics, a
subject initiated by Progogine soon after WWII. ("Irreversible" is
equivalent to "entropy production".) Slowly the gap between chemistry and
phsyics became clear and I began to perceive a non-linear rather than an
angular connection between them. Then my focus began to shift to the gap
between the physical sciences and the humanities. Eleven years later I
took the first step in bridging this gap when I not merely discovered
empirically that entropy production also happens in the abstract world of
mind, but recognised this discovery as of paramount importance to me.
Others thought I was crazy, having nothing else worthwhile to do.
In the mean time Prigogine has managed to bridge the gap between chemistry
and biology with his theory of dissipative (irreversible) self-organising
systems. He was awarded the Nobel prize in chemistry for his
transdisciplinary thinking. But his work also became highly controversial
because others could not see the gap, but merely wanted to shift lines
with their interdiciplinary thinking. However, some like Stu Kauffman
(with CAS - Complex Adaptive Systems) and Humberto Maturana (with
Autopoiesis) also became aware of gaps, trying to resolve it with their
theories. It is the achievments of these thinkers which brought me
consolation that I am not so crazy.
Is it possible to present chemistry and physics as two line segments
pointing into different directions and which do not join each other. Yes.
I will use the chemical equation as example. It will also show you how
physics and chemistry points to different directions.
First I must explain a little bit of chemistry to you. When an acid
(like sulphuric acid H2SO4) reacts with a base (like sodium hydroxide
NaOH) they produce a salt (in this case sodium sulphate Na2SO4) and
water (H2O). The balanced formula equation depicting this reaction is
H2SO4 + 2NaOH = Na2SO4 + 2H2O
Before the H2SO4 is a 1 (one) which chemists for some idosyncratic
reason never write. The same applies to Na2SO4. These two invisible
ones and also the other two visible twos are called stoichiometrical
coefficients. But in the unbalanced formula equation chemists write
merely
H2SO4 + NaOH = Na2SO4 + H2O
Here are only empty spaces (and not four ones) before the formulas of
the compounds. Confusing, is it not, for someone with little or no
chemical experience?
Soon the learner understands that in the balanced equation the
coefficients balance the equation for each of the elements. For
example the twos on both sides say that there are two sodium Na
formula units (atoms) on both sides. It is almost like book keeping.
Then the learner tries something new by, say, adding two formula units
of sulphutic acid and three formula units of water on both sides. The
result is
3H2SO4 + 2NaOH + 3H2O = 2H2SO4 + Na2SO4 + 5H2O
This equation is indeed balanced for all the elements. It is fine book
keeping. However, when the learner presents it to the teacher, he/she
gets no marks. Why? Because the "equation is not proper (authentic)"
they would say. They will explain it by "you have to cancel out all
spectators (lurkers) so that only the reactive parts remain". Two of
the sulphuric H2SO4 molecules and three of the water H2O molecules are
spectators (lurkers).
But what does this really means? That creative learner has added two
equations, namely the balanced "proper" equation
H2SO4 + 2NaOH = Na2SO4 + 2H2O
and the balanced "improper" equation
2H2SO4 + 3H2O = 2H2SO4 + 3H2O
Why is the last equation "improper"? Because it is an identity
equation. No change in the formula units of its compounds occurred. Is
this such a great sin to lose all marks? Yes, but let me explain.
In one of his works Progogine makes the statement that a chemical reaction
is by definition irreversible. I know of no chemistry textbook making the
same statement. Did Priogine make a casual statement? No. We all know how
a definition works. It constructs the basic meaning of something which we
will take further in our thinking by making additional mental
constructions on it. But who is Prigogine to link irreversibility (entropy
production) with "proper" chemical equations. Can he surely speak for all
chemists of whom many do not understand the meaning of irreversibility?
Yes. The entropy of any system, even if it is merely a chemical compound,
expresses the organisation of that system. This organisation includes the
chaos and order as well the structure and processes within such a system.
Likewise the chemical formula expresses the composition (organisation in
terms of elements) of a compound. For example, one molecule of H2SO4
consists of two hydrogen atoms H, one sulphur atom S and four oxygen atoms
O. Thus it is possible to connect irreversibility (entropy production)
with the chemical reaction (change in formulas which express
organisation).
In any identity ("improper") equation there is no change in the
formulas and thus (apperently) the organisation of the compounds. In a
"proper" equation all the formulas of all the compounds change. Those
on the left hand change by disappearing (immergences) while those on
the right hand change by appearing (emergences). It seems as if
chemists buzy themselves with the Rosetta stone of change. But it also
seems as if they have no interest in identity equations for which the
entropy does not change. Since the formulas do not change, it is just
not chemistry. Only when the identity equation becomes the proper
equation
H2SO4 + 2H2O = 2H3O+ + SO4--
their eyes begin to blink again. This is the equation for the
hydrolysis of an acid (as solute) by water (as solvent). Physical
chemists behave in the same manner as chemists.
Now what about physicists. They have no interest in chemistry because
it is another subject (discipline). The chemical equation serves as
the icon for this difference. They know little, if anything, about the
distiction between "proper" and "improper"equations. Thus an identity
equation such as
2H2SO4 + 3H2O = 2H2SO4 + 3H2O
have no appeal to them since it is just another chemical equation of
the chemists. Surely the chemists will attend to it. Chemical
physicists behave in the same manner as physicists.
Now we are in a position to understand the difference between a chemist
and a physicist. A chemist is primarily interested in the organisation
(composition, structure, etc.) of matter. A physicist is primarily
interested in how matter, given a certain chemical organisation, will
react to forces and hence changes in energy, excluding chemical changes.
Chemistry is concerned with the chemical reaction which is basically
irreversible -- entropy producing. Physicists have a nice name for
eternally entropy producing systems -- they call them non-conservative
systems. Physics is concerned with conservative systems. That is why
physicists will always try a new way to reduce the Law of Entropy
Production to a set of their own conservative laws. (See the Primer on
Entropy and especially the section on the twin syndrome.)
Also mathematicans are not interested in "improper" equations because it
is such elementary mathematics. The equation x=x expresses just another
well known axiom of mathematics called the reflexivity of the identity
operator. So what becomes of the identity equation? Well, in my mother
tongue Afrikaans we have a saying ("tussen die hand en die mond val die
pap op die grond") which translates literally as follows: between the
hand and the mouth the porridge falls on the ground. It means -- take care
of that gap.
I hope you will now all begin to suspect where the Crystal Digestor
based on the Ostwald digestion process lies. Let us consider two types
of barium sulphate BaSO4 crystals with the number n1 for the one kind
c1 and n2 for the other kind c2. (We still do not now that we have to
think in terms of m and M.) Let us now set up a chemical equation to
describe the Ostwald digestion process. The result is
n1BaSO4(c1) + n2BaSO4(c2) = n1BaSO4(c1) + n2BaSO4(c2)
Since neither the formulas, nor the coefficients, nor the physical
conditions (indicated by brackets) change on both sides, this is an
"improper" equation as one can get. Hence it is of no interest to
chemists. But since it is a chemical equation for phsyicists, it is
also of no interest to them. So "between the hand and the mouth the
porridge falls on the ground". Students in analytical chemistry
experience this soon when they pay little attention to something which
seems to be neither chemistry nor physics. Their gravimetric
determination of the suphate content of a sample fails dismally -- the
precipitate takes the gap and runs trhough the filter paper.
I also hope I have now made it plausible to all you fellow learners that
between two seemingly connected disciplines a gap may exist which cannot
even be covered by interdisciplinary thinking. To become aware of this gap
and to try and understand it, one must remove the artificial boundaries
drawn between the disciplines. However, keeping such boundaries closed,
even in interdisciplinary thinking, cannot result in bridging the gap.
Unfortunately, by removing the boundaries between disciplines, life for
those practising each discipline becomes dangerous. They fear that they
will lose their identity forever. (For example, a chemist fear that
chemistry will cease to exist while the physicist fear that phsyics will
cease to exist.) Bearing in mind that openness is one of the seven
essentialities of creativity, it is no wonder why creative people usually
think transdisciplinary rather interdisciplinary. It is also no wonder why
everybody desires innovation, but few really dare to provide for it.
My experience of thirty years motivates why I am cautious not to be boxed
in by any discipline or even any philosophy. I can also explain it in
terms of the seven essentialities as I once did it under the essentiality
wholeness. This knowledge of transdisciplinary thinking empowered me not
to be boxed into many schisms, for example evolution versus revolution,
material world versus abstract world, energy versus entropy, etc. It also
empowered me to think completely new on reality. In the same breath I
must warn against trying to understand the Digestor in isolation (as a
discipline). It is part of greater whole. Digestions close to equilbrium
without bifurcations at the edge of chaos to complement them is a
senseless indulgence. We cannot just eat and eat and eat. We need some
excerise to burn off the fuel gained through eating.
Leo, this technical paragraph is for you. In order to apply chemical
thermodynamics to the equation above, I had to break its identity by
making it a proper equation. You will probably figure out yourself
what I did. I changed it into
n1BaSO4(m1) + n2BaSO4(m2) = n1BaSO4(m1*) + n2BaSO4(m2*)
where m has the meaning "size of the crystals in terms of formula
units BaSO4. The aterisk * means "a changing size". The rest is rather
too technical for LO purposes.
Some final questions.
Am I unique because of transdiciplinary thinking? No, not really. There
are many other people who are fine exponents of transdisciplinary
thinking. Recently, for example, read any of the books of Fritoff Capra or
Douglas Hofstadter. Going back further in time, read any of the works of
great philosophers who gave us a lot of mileage.
Do I think only transdisciplinary?
No, I think transdisciplinary when I have to study complex systems. I
often have to think disciplinary to solve less complex problems.
However, transdiciplinary is not merely the thinking required in the
gaps left by disciplinary thinking. It is a way of combining
disciplinary thinking and the gaps left by it.
What is the relationship between transdisciplinary thinking and
non-linear thinking?
I cannot say for sure. As for myself, transdisciplinary thinking is
much closer to my intuition (tacit knowledge).
Is transdisciplinary thinking not merely the Digestor in diguise?
No. But it provided the context which empowered me to discover the
Digestor.
Is transdisciplinary thinking not another name for irresponsible
transformations?
No. But transformations (themselves fired by entropy production) are
the backgound against which transdiciplinary thinking occurs.
Transdisciplinary thinking requires a termination of stereotyping
during transformations.
Is transdisciplinary thinking not another name for post-modernism?
This is a difficult question to answer because there is so much
varieties of post-modernism. However, transdisciplinary thinking is
constructive rather than deconstructive and definitely not
destructive.
Will transdisciplinary thinking become important in the future? Yes.
Look, for example, at the evolution of books (and not papers in
journals because they are too disciplined) the past 200 years. On a
relative basis they have gradually increased. Transdisciplinary
thinking is part of this universe's development towards greater
complexity.
Will transdisciplinary thinking cause any radical change to existing
organisations?
Yes. For example, universities were for 700 years the bastions of
disciplinary thinking. Some of them are finally changing as a result
of transdisciplinary thinking.
Is there anything which will promote transdisciplinary thinking?
Yes, yes any commutation with information in its richest sense.
Actually, internet (uncensored) is already causing a giant leap into
transdisciplinary thinking.
Is there any danger in transdisciplinary thinking?
As far as nature goes, no. Actually, nothing in nature (other than
where humans are involved) is of a disciplinary character. That is why
interdisciplinary thinking (preceding transdisciplinary thinking) has
evolved in the first place. If all the natural sciences (like physics,
chemistry, geology, botany and zoology) would have remained "pure"
disciplines since 150 years ago, much of the developments in them the
past 50 years would not have been possible.
But as far as culture goes, yes. Transdiciplinary thinking (and not
interdisciplinary thinking) is not opposed to disciplinary thinking,
but disciplinary thinking is opposed to transdisciplinary thinking.
What is the difference between transdisciplinary thinking and creative
thinking?
As for those people who think that creativity is purely a human
property, the two can be considered to be almost the same thing, if
not the same thing. As for me, I perceive creativity as the
outstanding feature of reality, i.e Creator and Creation. That is why
I call my concept of creativity as "deep creativity". To see it
another way: "transdisciplinary thinking" refers to thinking and
nothing else. Cut the "thinking" away and the rest
("transdisciplinary") makes no sense. However, thinking is but one of
many kinds of processes which are creative. Even chemical reactions
are creative.
With this I lay transdisciplinary thinking in your midst to chew upon.
I will be glad to read your responses.
At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za>
Snailmail: A M de Lange
Gold Fields Computer Centre
Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria
Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
--"AM de Lange" <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>